Supreme Court Ruling Overturns Chevron Deference 2024
Date: June 28th, 2024
On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling, which previously allowed federal agencies to interpret statutes where information was ambiguous or missing; a precedent in place for over 40 years before being overturned.
With the new ruling, agencies may still interpret statute, but a court must “exercise their independent judgement in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” 22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (06/28/2024) (supremecourt.gov).
So what does this mean for employers?
The quick answer is nothing yet.
The longer answer is that the repercussions of this decision are yet to be known. Federal agencies that will likely be impacted include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Department of Labor (DOL), Occupational and Safety Hazard Administration (OSHA), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Supreme Court decision puts the decision-making and interpretation of law firmly in the hands of the judicial branch, meaning that courts may have a different opinion than a federal agency on the meaning of a law, which would supersede the agency’s interpretation.
Employers will be required to stay apprised of court cases across the country that may impact employment law in addition to following agency guidance where it isn’t currently being challenged.
Directly following the Loper Bright ruling, a Texas court challenged the DOL final overtime rule which went into effect July 1, 2024. The rule has been temporarily blocked for Texas state employees but remains in effect nationwide at this time.
Vida HR will continue to monitor the potential impact of this ruling and other U.S. Supreme Court rulings and provide information as it becomes available.
Get day-to-day updates on Supreme Court Ruling Overturns Chevron Deference visit the Vida HR Knowledge Center (Vida HR Clients Exclusive).
Comments